DOCSLIB.ORG

Nordmann's Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Final Report

Nordmann’s Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi

Cipto Dwi Handono1, Ragil Siti Rihadini1, Iwan Febrianto1 and Ahmad Zulfikar Abdullah1

1Yayasan Ekologi Satwa Alam Liar Indonesia (Yayasan EKSAI/EKSAI Foundation)
Surabaya, Indonesia

Background

Many shorebirds species have declined along East Asian-Australasian Flyway which support the highest diversity of shorebirds in the world, including the globally endangered species, Nordmann’s Greenshank. Nordmann’s Greenshank listed as endangered in the IUCN Red list of Threatened Species because of its small and declining population (BirdLife International, 2016). It’s one of the world’s most threatened shorebirds, is confined to the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (Bamford et al. 2008, BirdLife International 2001, 2012).

Its global population is estimated at 500–1,000, with an estimated 100 in Malaysia, 100–200 in Thailand, 100 in Myanmar, plus unknown but low numbers in NE India, Bangladesh and Sumatra (Wetlands International 2006).

The population is suspected to be rapidly decreasing due to coastal wetland development throughout Asia for industry, infrastructure and aquaculture, and the degradation of its breeding habitat in Russia by grazing Reindeer Rangifer tarandus (BirdLife International 2012).

Mostly Nordmann’s Greenshanks have been recorded in very small numbers throughout Southeast Asia, and there are few places where it has been reported regularly. In Myanmar, for example, it was rediscovered after a gap of almost 129 years. The total count recorded by the Asian Waterbird Census (AWC) in 2006 for Myanmar was 28 birds with 14 being the largest number at a single locality (Naing 2007). In 2011–2012, Nordmann’s Greenshank was found three times in Sumatera Utara province, N Sumatra. First, a flock of 13 birds was recorded on 17 Nov 2011 at Tanjung Rejo village (3°44'N, 98°46'E), Percut Sei Tuan Subdistrict. The other two records both relate to birds seen just 8 km from the first site at Sei Tuan village (3°42'N, 98°50'E), Pantai Labu Subdistrict three on 15 Dec 2011, and four on 13 Jan 2012 (Abdillah, Hasri and M. Iqbal, 2012).

During Far Eastern Curlew Survey, November 2019, we recorded 28 individuals of Nordmann’s Greenshank at Pantai Cemara, Jambi. This showed the potency of Pantai Cemara as one important site for Nordmann’s Greenshank in Indonesia.

Objective

Provide an updated data of Nordmann’s Greenshank population at Pantai Cemara Jambi

Identify the potencies and threats at Pantai Cemara as stopping site for Nordmann’s Greenshank species

Do the survey with local team to increase their identification ability

Ecosystem Essential Area, Pantai Cemara, Desa Sungai Cemara, Tanjung Jabung Timur Region, Jambi

Fig 01. Map of Pantai Cemara - Essential Ecosystem Area, Jambi (Ministry of Environment and
Forestry Republic of Indonesia, 2019)

Site Status :

Protected as Ecosystem Essential Area (Managed by Forestry Department of Jambi Province)

currently in the process to be proposed as Flyway Site Network

Potency :

- This site was visited by more than ten thousands of migratory shorebirds which searching for feeding and roosting ground during their migratory journey (Unpublished data of Migratory Shorebird Survey at Pantai Cemara, Jambi 2019).
- Local people in this site are eager to learn and involving them self to be the part of migratory shorebirds conservation. They see these birds as the potency of their village.
- Local government fully support the development and conservation activities for this site

Threat :
Direct threat

- Forest fire (but the effect are not as big as Sembilang NP) - Natural Predator (Eagle observed prey on Charadrius mongolus during the monitoring) - Plastic waste - Massive growth of Ipomea sp. and Avicennia sp.

Fig 02. Observation point at Pantai Cemara - Essential Ecosystem Area (Google Earth 2020)

Survey Method

We did our survey from November 17th, 2020 to November 21st, 2020 (5 days). We determine one observation point which will be able to access the wide beach with mixed sandy beach substrate type. We did the monitoring and training to the local people and local ranger during the monitoring activity. We reach the observation point by boat, and continue by foot.

Note about the habitat condition

There are massive growth of grass, Ipomea sp.and Avicennia sp. from 2019 (Fig.03).

Fig 03. Massive growth of grass, Ipomea sp., and Avicenna sp.

Survey Result

Table 01 : Result of Survey Activity at Pantai Cemara, Jambi between November 17th, 2020 - November 21st, 2020.

IUCN

  • NO
  • Spesies
  • English Name

Chinese Egret

Local Name

Kuntul Cina

  • Population Trend
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21

Status

1

Egretta eulopotes

  • Decreasing
  • VU
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1

DD (Data

  • Deficient)
  • 2

3456789

Charadrius dealbatus Charadrius leschenaultii Pluvialis squatarola Charadrius mongolus Pluvialis fulva

White-Faced Plover Greater Sandplover Grey Plover
Unknown Decreasing Decreasing Unknown
2
412
48
239
8
04
1
89 17
354
2
1
368
7
1
438
34
476
4
Cerek Pasir Besar Cerek Besar
LC LC LC LC LC NT NT LC LC LC LC LC EN EN EN LC LC
28
337
13
0
Lesser Sandplover Pacific Golden Plover Kentish Plover
Cerek Pasir Mongolia Cerek Krenyut Cerek Tilil
535

  • 7
  • Decreasing

Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Increasing Decreasing Decreasing
Stable

Charadrius alexandrinus Charadrius peronii

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

  • Malay Plover
  • Cerek Melayu

Cerek Jawa

  • 1
  • 0
  • 1
  • 1
  • 0

Charadrius javanicus

  • Javan Plover
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • 0

10 Hydropogne caspia 11 Sterna hirundo

  • Caspian Tern
  • Dara Laut Caspia

Dara Laut Biasa Dara Laut Tiram Dara Laut Jambul Dara Laut Kecil Kedidi Besar
32
0
20
0
23
0
41
0
44

  • 0
  • Common Tern

12 Gelochelidon nilotica 13 Thallasseus bergii 14 Stenula albifrons 15 Calidris tenuirostris

Common Gull-billed Tern Greater Crested Tern Little Tern

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

19 35 20 35 21 26 87
20 30 38
8
14 27
301
18
6

  • 0
  • 10

27
138
24
5
Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing
38
366
11
0
Great Knot

16 Numenius madagascariensis Far Eastern Curlew

Gajahan Timur Trinil Nordmann Trinil Rawa

17 Tringa guttifer 18 Tringa stagnatilis 19 Xenus cinereus

Spotted Greenshank Marsh Sandpiper Terek Sandpiper
11 20 74
22
125
16 36
17

  • 26
  • Trinil Bedaran

20 Tringa totanus

  • Common Redshank, Redshank Trinil Kaki Merah
  • Unknown

Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing
Stable
LC LC LC LC LC LC NT NT NT NT NT NT NT LC
30 17
1
38 21
1
29 18
1
4
24
1
17 20
1

21 Numenius phaeopus 22 Actitis hypoleucos 23 Arenaria interpres 24 Tringa nebularia 25 Calidris alba

  • Whimbrel
  • Gajahan Penggala

  • Trinil Pantai
  • Common Sandpiper

Rudy Turnstone Common Greenshank Sanderling
Trinil Pembalik Batu Trinil Kaki Hijau Kedidi Putih

  • 2
  • 2
  • 2
  • 0
  • 0

21
1
24
1
24
2
18
1
16

  • 1
  • Unknown

26 Limnodromus semipalmatus Asian Dowitcher

Trinil Lumpur Asia Biru Laut Ekor Hitam Biru Laut Ekor Blorok Kedidi Merah
Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing
125
5
234 525 485
0
70
220 562
0
78
328 569
0
68
469 368
0

27 Limosa limosa

Black-tailed Godwit Bar-tailed Godwit Red Knot

28 Limosa lapponica 29 Calidris canutus 30 Numenius arquata 31 Calidris ruficolis 32 Calidris ferruginea 33 Glareola maldivarum

520
0
Eurasian Curlew Red Necked Stint Curlew Sandpiper Oriental Pratincole
Gajahan Besar Kedidi Leher Merah Kedidi Gol-Gol Terik Asia
44
270 183
0
25
248 174
0
14
130 159
0
26
137 201
0
77
278 230
1

  • 2207
  • 2384 2233
  • 2817
  • 2791

Table 02 : Maximum Count of Far Eastern Curlew at Pantai Cemara, Jambi
Maximum Count of
Nordmann’s Greenshank
2019 2020
28 21
Table 03 : Maximum Count of Migratory Waterbird recorded at Pantai Cemara, Jambi
Maximum Count of Migratory
Waterbirds recorded
2019 2020
17,032
2,817

Table 04 : Maximum Count of Godwit recorded at Pantai Cemara, Jambi
Maximum Count of Black-tailed Godwit
3,700
Maximum Count of Bar-tailed Godwit
2,700

  • Maximum Count of
  • Maximum Count of

Great Knot
1950
Maximum Count of Far

  • Asian Dowitcher
  • Eastern Curlew

2019 2020
564 234
38

  • 35
  • 525
  • 520
  • 366

Fig 04. Chart of Nordmann’s Greenshank Max. Count Data 2019 and 2020 (unpublished data, EKSAI)
Fig 05. Chart of Near Threatened and Endangered Species at Pantai Cemara (2019 &2020) (unpublished data, EKSAI).

Pantai Cemara located at Desa Sungai Cemara, Tanjung Jabung Timur Region, Jambi
Province. It is designited as Essential Ecosystem Area in 2018 by the Governer of Jambi Province. This site known as one of the most important site for migratory shorebird along Sumatra Island. With mixed sandy beach texture of it’s substrate, this site used by more than ten thousands migratory shorebirds from 32 species (unpublished data, EKSAI Foundation).
In 2019 we also recorded three endangered species of migratory shorebird roosting and feeding on this site. We recorded 28 individuals of Spotted Greenshank (more than 1% of it’s population), 38 individuals of Far Eastern Curlew and 1950 individuals of Great Knot. This result showed the potency of this site as one of the most important site for migratory shorebirds in Indonesia. Generally, this numbers are declining on 2020 as we seen on table 01 and table 04.
If we see table 02, the number of Nordmann’s Greenshank also declining this year, even not drastically declining like Godwit.
The major change of Pantai Cemara mudflat is a massive growth of it’s vegetation (Ipomea sp., unidentified grass, mangroves and sea pine). During the survey, we notice that Nordmann’s Greenshank and other large shorebirds like Godwit, Curlew, and Asian Dowitcher and Great Knot never roost or foraging on mudflat with vegetation. Open mudflat without vegetation provide a better access to their prey (Finn et al, 2008). Despite the habitat change, Pantai Cemara still provide a suitable non-breeding site for more than 1% of Nordmann’s Greenshank global population. As it describe at Zocker et al (2018), Nordmann’s Greenshank usually recorded on softer mudflats sheltered by mangrove near with sandier mudflats. This habitat description are suitable with the condition and substrate type of Pantai Cemara estuarine inter-tidal mudflat. Despite the suitable condition of Pantai Cemara as non-breeding site for Nordmann’s Greenshank, the massive growth of it’s vegetation need to be watched and control so it will not disturbing the birds.

Fig 06. Nordmann’s Greenshank (personal documentation, 2020)

During the survey we trained local youth team to improve their identification skill for
Nordmann’s Greenshank (Fig 06). In five days we evaluate their ability to distinguish Nordmann’s Greenshank from other species and after five days training and evaluation, they are be able to identify the species correctly with minimum mistakes.

Fig 06. Nordmann’s Greenshank Identification training for local youth team (personal documentation, 2020)

Conclusion

- Despite the declining of numbers of migratory shorebirds at Pantai Cemara, maximum numbers of Nordmann’s Greenshank are stable, and Pantai Cemara still support more than 1% of Nordmann’s Greenshank population.

- The massive growth of vegetation at Pantai Cemara should become a concern to be managed, because it’s already affect the numbers of migratory shorebirds at Pantai Cemara.

- The local youth team’s skill to identify Nordmann’s Greenshank are hihgly improve during the training, and they will continue the monthly monitoring at Pantai Cemara.

(a)
(b)

References

BirdLife International. 2017. Numenius madagascariencis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species 2017 : e.T22693199A118601473.

UNEP-CMS. 2017. Action Plan for Far Eastern Curlew. Australia Government : Philiphines. Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, D. & Wahl, J. 2008. Migratory Shorebirds of the

East Asian-Australasian Flyway; Population Estimes and Internationally Important Sites.

Wetland International - Oceana. Canberra Australia
Van de Kam, J., Battley, P, F., McCaffery, B.I., Roger, D.I., Hong, J.S., Moores, N., Ki, J. Y., Lewis,

J., & Piersma, T. 2010. Invisible Connection : Why Migrating Shorebirds Need the Yellow Sea.

CSIRO Poblushing : Melbourne.
Melville, D.S., Chen, Y. & Ma, Z.J. 2016. Shorebirds along the Yeallow Sea coast of China face an uncertain future - a review of threaths. Emu 116: 100-110

Barter,M., 2002. Shorebirds of the Yellow Sea : Importance, threats and conservation status.
Wetland International Global Series 9, International Wader Studies 12. Canberra, Australia

Finn, P.G., Catterall, C.P. & Driscoll, P.V. 2008. Prey versus substrate as determinants of habitat choice in a feeding shorebirds.

Zocker, C., Li, David.,Chowdury, S.U.,Iqbal,Muhammad & Yu, Chenxing.2018.Winter Distribution,
Habitat and Feeding Behaviour of Nordmann’s Greenshank Tringa guttifer

Recommended publications
  • 2016 Checklist of Florida'a Birds

    2016 Checklist of Florida'a Birds

    Artwork by Ann Marie Tavares 2016 Checklist of Florida’s Birds Prepared by Dr. Greg Schrott and Andy Wraithmell The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida’s wild places are home to an incredible diversity of birds. Over 500 native bird species or naturally occurring strays have been recorded in the state in historic times, and about 330 native species commonly occur here (four have gone extinct). A further 14 nonnative species are considered to have established large, stable populations in Florida. More than 70 natural community types support this diversity, from the pine flatwoods of Apalachicola National Forest, to the scrub communities of the Lake Wales Ridge, and the vast sawgrass marshes and mangrove swamps of Everglades National Park. Our natural areas harbor many bird species seen nowhere else in the United States such as the Florida Scrub-Jay, Mangrove Cuckoo, and Snail Kite. In addition, Florida’s birdlife changes with the cycle of the seasons. A constant turnover of breeding, wintering and migratory species provides new birding experiences throughout the year. To help you keep track of the spectacular range of birdlife the state has to offer, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has published this checklist. The first edition of Checklist of Florida’s Birds was prepared by Dr. Henry M. Stevenson in 1986. During his lifetime, Dr. Stevenson made many contributions to the field of ornithology, culminating with his writing The Birdlife of Florida with Bruce H. Anderson (1994). This book offers the most comprehensive information published on the lives of Florida’s birds.
  • Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015)

    Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015)

    IUCN Red List version 2015.4: Table 7 Last Updated: 19 November 2015 Table 7: Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015) Published listings of a species' status may change for a variety of reasons (genuine improvement or deterioration in status; new information being available that was not known at the time of the previous assessment; taxonomic changes; corrections to mistakes made in previous assessments, etc. To help Red List users interpret the changes between the Red List updates, a summary of species that have changed category between 2014 (IUCN Red List version 2014.3) and 2015 (IUCN Red List version 2015-4) and the reasons for these changes is provided in the table below. IUCN Red List Categories: EX - Extinct, EW - Extinct in the Wild, CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, LR/cd - Lower Risk/conservation dependent, NT - Near Threatened (includes LR/nt - Lower Risk/near threatened), DD - Data Deficient, LC - Least Concern (includes LR/lc - Lower Risk, least concern). Reasons for change: G - Genuine status change (genuine improvement or deterioration in the species' status); N - Non-genuine status change (i.e., status changes due to new information, improved knowledge of the criteria, incorrect data used previously, taxonomic revision, etc.); E - Previous listing was an Error. IUCN Red List IUCN Red Reason for Red List Scientific name Common name (2014) List (2015) change version Category Category MAMMALS Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter LC NT N 2015-2 Ailurus fulgens Red Panda VU EN N 2015-4
  • Migratory Shorebirds Management Plan

    Migratory Shorebirds Management Plan

    Report GLNG Curtis Island Marine Facilities Migratory Shorebirds Environmental Management Plan 17 MARCH 2011 Prepared for GLNG Operations Pty Ltd Level 22 Santos Place 32 Turbot Street Brisbane Qld 4000 42626727 Project Manager: URS Australia Pty Ltd Level 16, 240 Queen Street Angus McLeod Brisbane, QLD 4000 Senior Ecologist GPO Box 302, QLD 4001 Australia T: 61 7 3243 2111 Principal-In-Charge: F: 61 7 3243 2199 Chris Pigott Senior Principal Author: Angus McLeod Senior Ecologist Reviewer: Date: 17 March 2011 Reference: 42626727/01/03 Status: Final Chris Pratt Principal Environmental Scientist j:\jobs\42626727\5 works\draft emp\for tina 17.3.11\3310-glng-3-3 3-0065_shorebirds_final_17 03 2011.doc Table of Contents Abbreviations............................................................................................................iii Executive Summary..................................................................................................iv 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Background .........................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose of the Migratory Shorebirds Environment Management Plan ...................................................................................................................1 1.3 Aims and Objectives ........................................................................................3 1.4 Study Area ........................................................................................................3
  • Long-Billed Curlew Distributions in Intertidal Habitats: Scale-Dependent Patterns Ryan L

    Long-Billed Curlew Distributions in Intertidal Habitats: Scale-Dependent Patterns Ryan L

    LONG-BILLED CURLEW DISTRIBUTIONS IN INTERTIDAL HABITATS: SCALE-DEPENDENT PATTERNS RYAN L. MATHIS, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, Cali- fornia 95521 (current address: National Wild Turkey Federation, P. O. Box 1050, Arcata, California 95518) MARK A. ColwELL, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521; [email protected] LINDA W. LEEMAN, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 (current address: EDAW, Inc., 2022 J. St., Sacramento, California 95814) THOMAS S. LEEMAN, Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California 95521 (current address: Environmental Science Associates, 8950 Cal Center Drive, Suite 300, Sacramento, California 95826) ABSTRACT. Key ecological insights come from understanding a species’ distribu- tion, especially across several spatial scales. We studied the distribution (uniform, random, or aggregated) at low tide of nonbreeding Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) at three spatial scales: within individual territories (1–8 ha), in the Elk River estuary (~50 ha), and across tidal habitats of Humboldt Bay (62 km2), Cali- fornia. During six baywide surveys, 200–300 Long-billed Curlews were aggregated consistently in certain areas and were absent from others, suggesting that foraging habitats varied in quality. In the Elk River estuary, distributions were often (73%) uniform as curlews foraged at low tide, although patterns tended toward random (27%) when more curlews were present during late summer and autumn. Patterns of predominantly uniform distribution across the estuary were a consequence of ter- ritoriality. Within territories, eight Long-billed Curlews most often (75%) foraged in a manner that produced a uniform distribution; patterns tended toward random (16%) and aggregated (8%) when individuals moved over larger areas.
  • Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist

    Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist

    Arcata Marsh & Wildlife Sanctuary Bird Checklist Arcata, Humboldt County, California (Updated Fall 2014) The following list of 327 species was updated by Rob Fowler and David Fix in 2014 from the list they compiled in 2009. Data came from sightings entered in eBird; Stanley Harris's Northwest California Bird (2005, 1996, 1991); historical records in North American Birds magazine and its supporting unpublished Humboldt County summaries; the 2006 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Elias Elias); the 1995 edition Arcata Marsh bird checklist (Kristina Van Wert); and personal communications with many birders. Formatting by Camden Bruner. Call the Northwest California Bird Alert at (707) 822-5666 to report or hear reports of rare birds! Abbreviations: A - Abundant; occurs in large numbers C - Common; likely to be found U - Uncommon; occurs in small numbers, found with seearching R - Rare; expected in very small numbers, not likely to be found Ca - Casual; several records, possibly may occur regularly Ac - Accidental; 1-3 records, not reasonably expected to occur Sp - Spring (Marsh - May) S - Summer (June to mid-July) F - Fall (mid-July through November) W - Winter (December through February) Here Waterfowl: Breeds Spring Summer Fall Winter _____ Greater White-fronted Goose R R R _____ Emperor Goose Ac _____ Snow Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Ross's Goose Ca Ca Ca _____ Brant U Ac U R _____ Cackling Goose A U C _____ Canada Goose C C C C yes _____ Tundra Swan Ca Ca _____ Wood Duck U U U U yes _____ Gadwall C C C C yes _____ Eurasian Wigeon R U R _____
  • Population Analysis and Community Workshop for Far Eastern Curlew Conservation Action in Pantai Cemara, Desa Sungai Cemara – Jambi

    Population Analysis and Community Workshop for Far Eastern Curlew Conservation Action in Pantai Cemara, Desa Sungai Cemara – Jambi

    POPULATION ANALYSIS AND COMMUNITY WORKSHOP FOR FAR EASTERN CURLEW CONSERVATION ACTION IN PANTAI CEMARA, DESA SUNGAI CEMARA – JAMBI Final Report Small Grant Fund of the EAAFP Far Eastern Curlew Task Force Iwan Febrianto, Cipto Dwi Handono & Ragil S. Rihadini Jambi, Indonesia 2019 The aim of this project are to Identify the condition of Far Eastern Curlew Population and the remaining potential sites for Far Eastern Curlew stopover in Sumatera, Indonesia and protect the remaining stopover sites for Far Eastern Curlew by educating the government, local people and community around the sites as the effort of reducing the threat of habitat degradation, habitat loss and human disturbance at stopover area. INTRODUCTION The Far Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariencis) is the largest shorebird in the world and is endemic to East Asian – Australian Flyway. It is one of the Endangered migratory shorebird with estimated global population at 38.000 individual, although a more recent update now estimates the population at 32.000 (Wetland International, 2015 in BirdLife International, 2017). An analysis of monitoring data collected from around Australia and New Zealand (Studds et al. in prep. In BirdLife International, 2017) suggests that the species has declined much more rapidly than was previously thought; with an annual rate of decline of 0.058 equating to a loss of 81.7% over three generations. Habitat loss occuring as a result of development is the most significant threat currently affecting migratory shorebird along the EAAF (Melville et al. 2016 in EAAFP 2017). Loss of habitat at critical stopover sites in the Yellow Sea is suspected to be the key threat to this species and given that it is restricted to East Asian - Australasian Flyway, the declines in the non-breeding are to be representative of the global population.
  • The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata

    The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata

    THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE SURFBIRD, APHRIZA VIRGATA JOSEPH R. JEHL, JR. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 The taxonomic relationships of the Surfbird, ( 1884) elevated the tumstone-Surfbird unit Aphriza virgata, have long been one of the to family rank. But, although they stated (p. most controversial problems in shorebird clas- 126) that Aphrizu “agrees very closely” with sification. Although the species has been as- Arenaria, the only points of similarity men- signed to a monotypic family (Shufeldt 1888; tioned were “robust feet, without trace of web Ridgway 1919), most modern workers agree between toes, the well formed hind toe, and that it should be placed with the turnstones the strong claws; the toes with a lateral margin ( Arenaria spp. ) in the subfamily Arenariinae, forming a broad flat under surface.” These even though they have reached no consensuson differences are hardly sufficient to support the affinities of this subfamily. For example, familial differentiation, or even to suggest Lowe ( 1931), Peters ( 1934), Storer ( 1960), close generic relationship. and Wetmore (1965a) include the Arenariinae Coues (1884605) was uncertain about the in the Scolopacidae (sandpipers), whereas Surfbirds’ relationships. He called it “a re- Wetmore (1951) and the American Ornithol- markable isolated form, perhaps a plover and ogists ’ Union (1957) place it in the Charadri- connecting this family with the next [Haema- idae (plovers). The reasons for these diverg- topodidae] by close relationships with Strep- ent views have never been stated. However, it silas [Armaria], but with the hind toe as well seems that those assigning the Arenariinae to developed as usual in Sandpipers, and general the Charadriidae have relied heavily on their appearance rather sandpiper-like than plover- views of tumstone relationships, because schol- like.
  • Birds Along Lehi's Trail

    Birds Along Lehi's Trail

    Journal of Book of Mormon Studies Volume 15 Number 2 Article 10 7-31-2006 Birds Along Lehi's Trail Stephen L. Carr Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Carr, Stephen L. (2006) "Birds Along Lehi's Trail," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Vol. 15 : No. 2 , Article 10. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol15/iss2/10 This Feature Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Book of Mormon Studies by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title Birds Along Lehi’s Trail Author(s) Stephen L. Carr Reference Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 15/2 (2006): 84–93, 125–26. ISSN 1065-9366 (print), 2168-3158 (online) Abstract When Carr traveled to the Middle East, he observed the local birds. In this article, he suggests the possi- bility that the Book of Mormon prophet Lehi and his family relied on birds for food and for locating water. Carr discusses the various birds that Lehi’s family may have seen on their journey and the Mosaic law per- taining to those birds. Birds - ALOnG LEHI’S TRAIL stephen l. cARR 84 VOLUME 15, NUMBER 2, 2006 PHOTOGRAPHy By RICHARD wELLINGTOn he opportunity to observe The King James translators apparently ex- birds of the Middle East came to perienced difficulty in knowing exactly which me in September 2000 as a member Middle Eastern birds were meant in certain pas- Tof a small group of Latter-day Saints1 traveling in sages of the Hebrew Bible.
  • Trends in Breeding Phenology Across Ten Decades Show Varying Adjustments to Environmental Changes in Four Wader Species

    Trends in Breeding Phenology Across Ten Decades Show Varying Adjustments to Environmental Changes in Four Wader Species

    Bird Study ISSN: 0006-3657 (Print) 1944-6705 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbis20 Trends in breeding phenology across ten decades show varying adjustments to environmental changes in four wader species Hans Meltofte, Ole Amstrup, Troels Leuenhagen Petersen, Frank Rigét & Anders P. Tøttrup To cite this article: Hans Meltofte, Ole Amstrup, Troels Leuenhagen Petersen, Frank Rigét & Anders P. Tøttrup (2018) Trends in breeding phenology across ten decades show varying adjustments to environmental changes in four wader species, Bird Study, 65:1, 44-51, DOI: 10.1080/00063657.2018.1444014 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2018.1444014 Published online: 20 Mar 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 49 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbis20 BIRD STUDY, 2018 VOL. 65, NO. 1, 44–51 https://doi.org/10.1080/00063657.2018.1444014 Trends in breeding phenology across ten decades show varying adjustments to environmental changes in four wader species Hans Meltoftea, Ole Amstrupb, Troels Leuenhagen Petersenc, Frank Rigéta and Anders P. Tøttrupc aDepartment of Bioscience, Aarhus University, Roskilde, Denmark; bAmphi Consult, Aalborg, Denmark; cCenter for Macroecology, Evolution and Climate, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY Capsule: During 1928–2016, initiation of egg-laying advanced in two wader species, remained Received 8 May 2017 unchanged in one, and was delayed in one species. The changes across years and variation Accepted 19 February 2018 among species can be explained by climatic variables and differences in migratory strategies.
  • List of Shorebird Profiles

    List of Shorebird Profiles

    List of Shorebird Profiles Pacific Central Atlantic Species Page Flyway Flyway Flyway American Oystercatcher (Haematopus palliatus) •513 American Avocet (Recurvirostra americana) •••499 Black-bellied Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) •488 Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) •••501 Black Oystercatcher (Haematopus bachmani)•490 Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis) •511 Dowitcher (Limnodromus spp.)•••485 Dunlin (Calidris alpina)•••483 Hudsonian Godwit (Limosa haemestica)••475 Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)•••492 Long-billed Curlew (Numenius americanus) ••503 Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa)••505 Pacific Golden-Plover (Pluvialis fulva) •497 Red Knot (Calidris canutus rufa)••473 Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)•••479 Sanderling (Calidris alba)•••477 Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus)••494 Spotted Sandpiper (Actitis macularia)•••507 Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda)•509 Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri) •••481 Wilson’s Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor) ••515 All illustrations in these profiles are copyrighted © George C. West, and used with permission. To view his work go to http://www.birchwoodstudio.com. S H O R E B I R D S M 472 I Explore the World with Shorebirds! S A T R ER G S RO CHOOLS P Red Knot (Calidris canutus) Description The Red Knot is a chunky, medium sized shorebird that measures about 10 inches from bill to tail. When in its breeding plumage, the edges of its head and the underside of its neck and belly are orangish. The bird’s upper body is streaked a dark brown. It has a brownish gray tail and yellow green legs and feet. In the winter, the Red Knot carries a plain, grayish plumage that has very few distinctive features. Call Its call is a low, two-note whistle that sometimes includes a churring “knot” sound that is what inspired its name.
  • Iucn Red Data List Information on Species Listed On, and Covered by Cms Appendices

    Iucn Red Data List Information on Species Listed On, and Covered by Cms Appendices

    UNEP/CMS/ScC-SC4/Doc.8/Rev.1/Annex 1 ANNEX 1 IUCN RED DATA LIST INFORMATION ON SPECIES LISTED ON, AND COVERED BY CMS APPENDICES Content General Information ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Species in Appendix I ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Mammalia ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Aves ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Reptilia ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Pisces .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
  • POLICY OPTIONS for MIGRATORY BIRD FLYWAYS CMS Flyways Working Group: Review 3

    POLICY OPTIONS for MIGRATORY BIRD FLYWAYS CMS Flyways Working Group: Review 3

    CONVENTION ON MIGRATORY SPECIES POLICY OPTIONS FOR MIGRATORY BIRD FLYWAYS CMS Flyways Working Group: Review 3 Colin A Galbraith March 2011 CMS Contract No 14550 and additional staff time from Colin Galbraith Environment Limited Policy Options for Migratory Bird Flyways CMS Flyways Working Group: Review 3 CONTENTS PAGE Executive summary 3 Introduction 14 1.1 Background and approach used 14 The major flyways 15 2.1 Flyways 15 2.2 The status of species on flyways 20 Coverage of existing CMS and non CMS instruments and frameworks 22 3.1 Summary of existing agreements 22 3.2 Gaps in geographical coverage 22 3.3 Coverage of species groups 23 3.4 Priorities to fill the gaps in coverage 24 The key pressures impacting on migratory birds 25 4.1 Habitat loss, fragmentation and reduction in quality 26 4.2 Climate change 28 4.3 By-catch 30 4.4 Unsustainable use 32 4.5 Lead shot and other poisons 35 4.6 Invasive alien species 36 4.7 Agricultural conflicts and pest control 37 4.8 Disease 38 4.9 Information gaps 39 2 Priorities for the development of CMS instruments to cover flyways 40 5.1 The role of CMS 40 5.2 Geographical priorities 41 5.3 Species priorities 46 Options for CMS instruments for migratory bird conservation 49 6.1 High level policy options 50 6.2 Developing a new approach 51 6.3 Identification of priorities and a plan for action 55 6.4 Mechanisms for action 59 6.5 Issues of profile 61 6.6 Practicalities 61 Annex 1 Timetable for major forthcoming meetings 64 Annex 2 Threatened waterbirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway 67 Annex 3